Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00358
Dated: 24 October 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri M.R. Ketharam,
Chief Planning Inspector,
A-4, Thiruvalluvar Aptt., 2, Brindavan
Street, West Mambalam, Chennai, 600003
Name of the Public Authority : Southern Railway, Chennai
Background:
Shri M.R. Ketharam of Chennai filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai, 21 June 2007, wherein he sought
photocopy of his answersheet for the examination held for the post of the Chief
Controller in the scale of Rs.7450-11500 in the Southern Railway, Chennai.
2. The PIO vide his letter dated 9 July 2007 replied to the RTI-application. Not
satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal with the
Appellate Authority on 26 July 2007 who vide his letter dated 20 August 2008 replied
to it. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Central Information Commission with
a Second Appeal on 4 February 2008, which was registered in the Commission on 21
April 2008. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the
matter on 17 September 2008.
3. The Commission noted that the PIO had addressed a letter to the Commission
on 15 September 2008 expressing his inability to come: not only that, even requesting
the Commission to close the case. Obviously, the time was too short for the
Commission to inform the Appellant. Moreover, the Commission did not accept such
a submission from the PIO requesting for closure of the case. Accordingly, the
Commission decided to hear the case again on 13 October 2008. The Commission also
ordered that in case the Applicant decided to come for the above case, the
Respondents would pay him full AC-III tier to and fro Chennai-Delhi fare and
Rs.1,000/- for his stay in Delhi. The Commission also ordered that in case he opted
not to come or to join the hearing through audio conference, he was free to do so.
For unnecessarily wasting the time of the Commission and not presenting the case
properly amounting to withholding of information, the Commission gave an
opportunity to the PIO to explain why a penalty of Rs.10,000/- not be imposed upon
him. He was asked to bring his submission in writing at the time of the next hearing
or send it earlier by post.
4. Shri N. Prasad Rao, Sr. DPO and Shri Manickaraj, APO, represented the
Respondents.
5. The Appellant, Shri M.R. Ketharam, was neither present nor send any
representative for the hearing.
Decision:
6. In the absence of the Appellant, the Commission heard the Respondents and
noted that they had supplied a photocopy of the answersheet of the Appellant as
requested for by him in his RTI-application. During the hearing, the Respondents
stated that the Appellant also wanted a copy of the key to the examination paper
“based on which the papers were evaluated”. First, this request was not a part of
the original RTI-application and hence cannot be admitted, and secondly according to
the Respondents, the Appellant had asked for a key to the descriptive type questions
which obviously cannot be supplied.
7. The case is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri M.R. Ketharam, Chief Planning Inspector, A-4, Thiruvalluvar Aptt., 2,
Brindavan Street, West Mambalam, Chennai, 600003
2. The Public Information Officer, Southern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager’s
Office, Commercial Branch, Chennai-600003
3. The Appellate Authority, Southern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager’s Office,
Commercial Branch, Chennai-600003
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC